Will grisly massacre change the debate over gun control?

Another horrific massacre has prompted calls for more gun control. Advocates for gun ownership rights denounce the “politicizing” of the tragedy, and say criminals will still find ways to kill.

It’s a familiar pattern: It followed the 32 Virginia Tech murders in 2007, the shopping center attack on then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others in 2011, and the midnight-movie horror in Aurora, Colo., in July.

And as time passed, nothing happened. Gun laws were not changed — if anything, over time, they have been loosened.

And now after the deaths of 26 people, most of them small children, in a Connecticut elementary school, the question arises: Will it be any different this time?

Will the outcome change because of the fact that 20 of the victims were 7 or younger, each shot multiple times?

Will it change because a newly reelected president wiped tears from his eyes as he addressed the nation and said, “We’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics”?

Those who want more restrictions on guns say they hope so, but they recognize the challenge and need President Obama to take a strong stance behind the effort.

“It is not enough to feel sickened,” Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., said Saturday. “Anyone who’s not moved to do something by this is heartless. Look at these kids.”

But gun control opponents continue to have considerable power in both parties on Capitol Hill, where proposals introduced after previous shootings have languished, in part because public opinion has not moved to favor stricter laws.

And, for the most part, the country remains mostly divided over the issue. And polls show high-profile shootings do little to sway the results significantly.

“Creating gun laws is not going to stop stuff like this from happening,” said Gerald G. Van Ess, a West Milford man who grew up target shooting and joined the National Rifle Association about two years ago to combat what he sees as a rising anti-gun tide in the United States.

That’s a view shared by Governor Christie. A Republican who has opposed congressional efforts to weaken his state’s tough gun laws, he has said repeatedly that New Jersey does not need more laws.

“Bad people do bad things,” Christie said. “There are some folks who, if they’re intent on killing people, there’s almost nothing you can do to prevent it.”

Law enforcement sources have said Adam Lanza used licensed weapons he took from the house he shared with his mother in Newtown, Conn.

The firearms, identified by sources as a Bushmaster .223 rifle, a Glock 9mm pistol and a Sig Sauer semiautomatic, were recovered at the scene, police said. The rifle and pistol are similar to the types used in the mass shootings in Oregon and Colorado. Gun control advocates argue that the guns, popular for target shooting and self-defense, fire too many rounds too quickly.

Turning point?

Those who want new laws say the deaths of the Connecticut youngsters, and the fact that Obama no longer has to worry about reelection, could mark a turning point.

“I’ve been with the organization through Columbine, Virginia Tech and many other shootings,” said Brian Malte, national mobilization director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “This time we’re hearing from many more elected officials, and from people around the country who want to not just donate money but join the organization and volunteer their time. People have had enough.”

Over time, and with limited success, gun control advocates have called for measures including stricter background checks, limiting ammunition sales and banning assault weapons. These changes, advocates argue, would at the least make mass shootings less deadly, and would curb everyday gun violence nationwide.

New Jersey already restricts the number of guns that can be purchased in a month.

Former New Jersey Gov. Jim Florio, a Democrat who drew the ire of gun rights advocates for his successful push to pass the nation’s first assault weapons ban in 1990, said it took a sustained statewide push to win legislative support.

Obama should make a direct appeal to the American people, he said.

“If the general public doesn’t become engaged, then the gun lobby, which is very much engaged, prevails,” he said. “If this massacre in Connecticut doesn’t mobilize people, I don’t know what will.”

Obama supported tougher gun laws as a U.S. senator and Illinois legislator, but as president he has said the focus should be on better enforcement of existing laws. In a brief address after Friday’s shooting, he teared up before talking about the murdered children in Connecticut.

It’s unclear how much Obama could do without broader political consensus, but some advocates have suggested that he take incremental steps on his own, such as issuing an executive order banning the import of assault rifles.

After the Aurora shooting in July, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., urged Obama to get behind his bill to limit the size of ammunition magazines – a bill the senator introduced after Giffords was seriously wounded in January 2011.

Large magazines previously were banned by the federal government, along with the sale of semiautomatic assault rifles. That ban expired in 2004.

Obama did not get involved, and Lautenberg’s bill, which had only 11 co-sponsors, has gone nowhere. A similar measure in the House, with 113 co-sponsors, also has not moved.

Gun control advocates who may have held back on criticizing Obama before the election are not likely to do so now that Obama no longer has to face the voters.

“We have heard all the rhetoric before,” said New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the co-chairman of Mayors Against Illegal Guns. “What we have not seen is leadership – not from the White House and not from Congress. That must end today.”

Lautenberg, who also is sponsoring bills that have languished to require background checks for purchases at gun shows and block gun purchases by people on terrorist watch lists, quoted the Obama statement in his own news release.

“Americans are sick and tired of these attacks on our children and neighbors and they are sick and tired of nothing being done in Washington to stop the bloodshed,” Lautenberg said.

Powerful group

The National Rifle Association remains a powerful force. In this year’s election, 288 federal candidates shared more than $800,000 in contributions, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The NRA also spent $18 million independently to help friends and defeat opponents, including more than $9 million against Obama, Federal Election Commission records show. In addition, the NRA spent more than $5 million in the past two years lobbying Congress.

Rep. Jon Runyan, R-N.J., was the state’s biggest beneficiary of the NRA, which contributed $5,000 to his reelection campaign and spent $13,000 independently on mailings. Other recipients of NRA contributions from New Jersey were Republican Reps. Frank LoBiondo ($2,000) and Leonard Lance ($1,000).

Their spokesmen did not return messages seeking comment Saturday.

“The NRA owns Capitol Hill, and that’s why states have to act,” said Bryan Miller, who runs a faith-based gun-control group called Heeding God’s Call.

But Bloomberg, a billionaire, tried to change some of that this year. He gave $10 million to his own “super PAC” to support candidates who favored gun control, FEC records show. Spending by Independence USA PAC helped oust Rep. Joe Baca, a pro-gun California Democrat, and supported one other winner. Bloomberg-backed candidates lost in three other races.

Polls have shown that voters in New Jersey are more supportive of gun control than the nation. They also show that national opinion does not change much after mass shootings.

A Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation poll released in August — weeks after the Aurora shootings — found a 51-47 split between those who favor and oppose stricter gun laws nationally, virtually unchanged from January 2011.

It could depend on how the message is delivered, however. A CNN/ORC poll released in August found 57 percent of adults nationally support a ban on assault rifles, and 60 percent back a ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines.

Malte, from the Brady campaign, said asking people if they support stricter laws is the wrong question, because people think there are already tougher laws than there really are.

More support in N.J.

Support for gun control tends to be higher in New Jersey than in most other states. A Rutgers-Eagleton poll in August found that when asked whether gun control or gun owners’ rights were more important, 65 percent chose gun control versus 27 percent who chose gun owners. The poll also found that 47 percent of voters wanted stricter state laws, 28 percent wanted laws to stay the same, and 11 percent wanted less strict laws.

State Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg, D-Teaneck, criticized Christie’s comments, citing legislation she sponsored to develop technology that would allow guns only to be used by their owner.

“A son-proof handgun in her house might have made a difference,” Weinberg said, referring to reports that the Connecticut shooter used his mother’s handguns.

Though Weinberg called New Jersey’s gun laws tough, she said Christie should use the political capital he gained campaigning for Republican candidates in the last election to push for tougher federal laws.

“We’ve got good gun control laws in New Jersey, but they do no good unless we get national legislation passed,” she said.